As Mattel defends Barbie's 'unachievable, perfect' body, Louisa Peacock
says it's actually refreshing to hear someone say (even if it is Barbie's
maker) that few young girls compare themselves to the toys they play with

'A pair of new Barbie dolls lay on top with two packs of interchangeable accessories close by'Photo: ALAMY

After years and years of criticism over Barbie's teeny tiny waist, stupidly long legs and big (ish) boobs, the plastic doll's maker Mattel has finally responded. "Barbie's body was never designed to be realistic," said Kim Culmone, the doll's vice president of design.

How refreshing. It could have come years earlier, but still, how refreshing. For once a big corporate hasn't tried to dodge the obvious elephant in the room about Barbie's 'perfect body' being unachievable for the majority of women. It doesn't actually matter, is the message from Culmone.

In aninterview with Fast Company,the lead designer defends Barbie's crazy proportions. It's thought to be the first time the brand has bitten back to the years of scouring from parents and older women about how awful Barbie dolls are, how they teach girls all the wrong values and essentially, ruin a young girl's life.

Well, newsflash: I played with Barbie dolls when I was little and I turned out alright. I never thought I should look exactly like her. Sure, I have body image worries just like the next girl, but I'm fairly confident they don't stem from my plastic Barbie doll. In any case, I was far more interested and excited by being able to change her outfits and swapping between pretty, shiny dresses and suits than I was pining after her body.

Culmone makes another valid point. When asked if young girls compare their bodies to Barbie dolls (and feel disappointed at the realisation they'll never, ever look like them), she says: "I don’t. Girls view the world completely differently than grown-ups do. They don’t come at it with the same angles and baggage and all that stuff that we do. Clearly, the influences for girls on those types of issues, whether it’s body image or anything else, it’s proven*, it’s peers, moms, parents, it’s their social circles.

"You have to remember that girls’ perceptions are so different than grown ups’ perceptions about what real is and what real isn’t, and what the influences are."

Again, how refreshing. Just because you give a young girl a thin doll, or a pink doll, doesn't mean anything in its own right. It's the expectations and attitudes behind it that can carry the 'damaging' message – not the product itself – as June O'Sullivan pointed out in her blog for Wonder Women earlier this week on pink Lego. It's not pink Lego that's the problem, it's pushy parents who shove 'girlie' down their daughters' throats', she said.

The only thing that doesn't really add up with Culmone's defence of unrealistic doll figures is that Barbie's body was "designed for girls to easily dress and undress". I do remember some of her outfits, particularly the sparkly blue jumpsuits, being quite difficult as a seven year-old to get on. The shoes kept popping off too. And I can't see how, if Barbie was fat (as some are campaigning for), how that wouldn't actually be easier to dress – less curves to worry about.

But still, the overall premise of Culmone's interview makes perfect sense to me. Toys are just toys. Some girls like playing with them. It's not the end of the world.